An environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the fourth developmental stage of the Central Science Park in Erlin Township (二林), Changhua County, was passed recently. The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) said that the EIA was passed using stricter requirements than the preliminary review and it rejected criticism from environmental groups that the case is moving further and further away from environmental protection standards.
After looking closely at the EIA review process, we have to ask whether the EIA adequately addressed concerns raised by local residents and the environmental groups.
The EPA found that plans for two ocean outfall pipes were acceptable because, based on environmental protection expertise, the main environmental goals of protecting public health and not affecting irrigation and coastal aquaculture breeding could be guaranteed. This is utter nonsense.
The apple snails in Siaoli River (霄裡溪) — designated by the government as a “Category A water body” — were unable to survive after the river started receiving waste water from optoelectronics factories in the area.
The EPA even sent out an official letter instructing local residents not to use water from the river and then transported water there for local resident use.
Farmers who used the waste water to irrigate crops had to abandon them because the rice could not mature.
Waste water is still being pumped into the Siaoli River, and the EPA has been unable to solve this problem despite holding an endless number of meetings.
How are we supposed to believe that EIAs are being carried out professionally? Let us not forget that optoelectronics factories belonging to AU Optronics and Chunghwa Picture Tubes on the upper reaches of the Siaoli River also passed EIAs.
If the waste water really is as safe as the EPA guarantees, why do plans for waste water management continue to change?
In response to questions and concerns from legislators and county commissioners, and in an attempt to soothe public concern, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said the waste water would be channeled through dedicated ocean outfall pipes that will pump the water 3km further out to sea.
EPA Minister Stephen Shen (沈世宏) also said that common sense should tell us that a plan devised by the Cabinet would be “better” than conclusions reached by an environmental impact assessment committee.
If so, shouldn’t this “common sense plan” be subjected to an EIA instead of being turned into a supplementary executive resolution that is not binding on the developers, thus allowing them to act as they see fit?
Through this process, the worth of Wu’s promises has been greatly diminished.
Just as the policy of increasing US beef imports extends beyond the question of personal choice, so is the EPA’s decision in this case a threat to the health, safety and sustainability of the nation’s food supply and the environment. It is not enough for the government to claim it has fulfilled its responsibilities and expect citizens to deal with the risks themselves.
The waste water drainage that the EPA claims to be safe will now affect 60 percent of Taiwan’s vegetable supply. Along the Jhuoshuei River (濁水溪) and near its mouth there are 5 million pigs and chickens, cows that produce fresh milk, as well as clam and oyster farms worth NT$6.4 billion (US$197 million) per year. Who will take responsibility for the damage to the health of the public once these resources are tainted?
Whether it be policies for importing US beef or the EPA’s Central Science Park dealings, the government has ignored sound public objections, imperiling both public health and the credibility of environmental impact assessments.
Now, when a problem arises, the government is calling on the public to deal with the issue themselves. This kind of administrative logic is tantamount to declaring that Taiwan has become a society that ignores — and even indulges in — high risk.
Tu Wenling is an associate professor in the Department of Public Policy and Management at Shih Hsin University and Chair of the Taiwan Environmental Action Network.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS